Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Wikileaks is just Assange (Score 1) 447

No, that's what their stellar education system for. Terrorism is better destroyed by education than it is by bombs and guns.

[Ted] Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University in 1962, at age 20, and subsequently enrolled at the University of Michigan, where he earned a PhD in mathematics.[16] Kaczynski's specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. His professors at Michigan were impressed with his intellect and drive. "He was an unusual person. He was not like the other graduate students," said Peter Duren, one of Kaczynski's math professors at Michigan. "He was much more focused about his work. He had a drive to discover mathematical truth." "It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors.[20] Kaczynski earned his PhD with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions"[21] by solving a problem so difficult that even Piranian could not solve it.[20] Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."[22] In 1967, Kaczynski won the University of Michigan's Sumner B. Myers Prize, which recognized his dissertation as the school's best in mathematics that year.[22] While a graduate student at Michigan, he held a National Science Foundation fellowship and taught undergraduates for three years. He also published two articles related to his dissertation in mathematical journals, and four more after leaving Michigan.[21][23]

Comment Re:ugh (Score 5, Insightful) 337

The law was proposed by a democrat, but the vast majority of congress critters both republican and democrat voted for it. A republican president then signed it into law. Basically both sides liked it, so you'll have to find someone else to hate for now.

Because elected officials were willing to be known as "that guy who hates people in wheelchairs and expects them to drag their bodies up the steps of a building with just their hands"...?

Come on, this is the Social Justice m.o. -- Terrible law which has no business being passed gets passed because every official who votes for it gets to virtue-signal as being Caring and Pro-Diversity and Forward-Thinking, because "if it only helps one person this {128374-page law with 4 billion in bureaucratic overhead and hundreds of billions in compliance costs to ever man, woman, child, and business in our society} will have been worth it!"

Well, 40 years into the Progressive Revolution and we've long passed the point of diminishing returns, where now each new "right" for each new sub-sub-subgroup is actively depriving the majority of people from looking at a damn website, because the ability to look at a website that other people might not be able to look at is cruel and heartless and a tool of oppression by the white male heterosexist ablist hegemony.

Let's repeat that again -- the federal government has established that the simple act of people looking at a website is trampling on the equal-protection rights of a victim class. LOOKING AT A WEBSITE.

You're not Rosa Parks; this isn't the 60s; nobody is siccing dogs on you or firebombing your home, they are LOOKING AT A WEBSITE.


Comment Re:Face masks anyone? (Score 1) 125

How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?

Automated biometrics are advancing every month. Gait, posture, general size/outline, body language... these are all keys which can be used to positively ID you in the same way face recognition is a composite of components like eyes, lips, nose, cheekbones, brow, etc. Covering your mouth or your eyes doesn't render your unrecognizable. A little harder maybe, but not by enough to defeat modern technology. So no, face masks won't make a difference. (Plus the likelihood that measures you might take to conceal yourself might be criminalized. And if not criminalized, then immediately mark you for HEIGHTENED suspicion and surveillance.)

Furthermore, the entire concept is moot because once the all-seeing eye is complete, a mere face mask won't protect you because the system can backtrack you and use simple equivalents of circuit electronics and fluid flow to find out who all went into a location and who all came out, and it can easily match your identity by subtracting all the people who AREN'T wearing the masks.

We are heading for the Total Information Awareness state. It is coming. Very quickly. All the technology now exists. The only thing left is implementation. And because freedom is scary, we will cry out to them to save us from it and give us the comfort of a cell.

Comment Re:Pretty cool (Score 2) 125

Thing is, there needs to be sensible privacy legislation in place *before* these systems roll out. Otherwise, the potential for abuse is insane. Kettling on steroids, to name just one. Microphones on every lamp post, whoa...

More unjustified naivete.
Let's not pretend we don't know how things work, as if there weren't mountains of human history demonstrating what will happen.

There is no amount of legislation which will remove the "potential for abuse". Legislation doesn't magically make the data go away. If the data is collected, it has a gravity of its own, and just like a new planet that gravity will over time pull the other parts of legal system out of their current orbit and result in something different. Information is power. You can't create a giant bank account of Information and expect it to never be stolen, embezzled, compromised, distorted, or used for political gain.

IF the data is there, it WILL be abused. Absolute 100% certainty.

Comment Re:Not entirely sure (Score 2) 125

To be honest, if I'm looking at all the people who use the Chrome browser, who use Windows 10, who use smartphones, and who all have opted into this control and surveillance, I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime and abuse is a good way to stop it. However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city. If this is only done in cities where crime is very present, then its a good move!

Also, these cameras can't be turned off by police officials as easily as body cameras can, so I think its more likely to see better proof for police brutality and to pick out the bad apples.

Obviously, you need to watch out that these data don't get into wrong hands and maybe get used for extortion.

Your naivete is saddening. You seem to feel that somehow THIS system of control, unlike all other systems of control, will magically not be abused just because there is a way to "watch out that [it doesn't] get into the wrong hands" and "If this [new system of control] is only done in [narrowly defined situations with no mission creep] then its [sic] a good move!"

Why are you willfully choosing to believe something which has never been reality before, is going to be reality THIS time?
1) This level of pervasive panopticon data WILL get into the wrong hands. It WILL be abused. Absolute 100% certainty.
2) This new system of control will NOT be kept to very narrowly defined scope. There WILL be mission creep. In 30 years it WILL be a pervasive all-seeing eye where every second of your life is tracked and collated by a government/corporate crony hegemony. Absolute 100% certainty.

Seriously. Look at history and wake up. Childhood is at an end. Cages are reassuring and freedom is scary, but come out here and be an adult in the ugly reality-land.

Comment Re:More regulations stifling businesses. (Score 2) 221

Ticket retailers are both a monopoly and an oligopoly. Essentially all retailer has a monopoly over a given venue. The venue may be allowed a small amount of ticket blocks which are used for their own purposes (direct sales, gifts, charity, marketing, etc..) but the vast direct-sales come through a single distributor.

Those ticket distributors are largely an oligopoly, since venues only want to deal with reputable outlets with large market shares in order to maximize sales.

All of them (Venue, Talent, Distributor) have a very shaky interest in eliminating scalping at all. Tickets are sold, the stadium is filled, most people are happy. Scalping only hurts one group of people: Consumers. In the long long term, people will be so jaded with going to 'ticketed' shows that the attendances will drop below capacity. That also hurts the smaller acts far more disproportionately than the rich ones (which have a more captivated audience to saturate the scalping tax). The arts dies and we all point fingers at one another instead of 'fixing the problem', whatever that looks like (I've given my 2 cents in a different post).

That's not how it works. You stopped describing the process halfway through and then waved your hands and said "the arts dies". QED.
Scalpers are drawn by profit motive. That profit motive exists because, clearly, there is untapped demand. A scalper is a speculative investor looking to realize the remaining value in that untapped demand. Scalpers don't just go out there and buy up every ticket for every show, any more than business investors tell their portfolio manager: "Go buy 100 shares of every company in existence!"

In the long term, yes, people will get jaded with ticketed shows where it's 35 dollars to get into some dive bar with a 3 meter box along one wall serving as a "stage", and then attendances will drop below capacity. That is, the market will cease to generate extra demand for many concerts at the prices offered. In the instances when this happens, the speculative investors who bought up blocks of tickets will actually LOSE money, because they will have to resell the tickets at/below face value, or may not be able to resell them at all because demand has already been turned off by the hefty asking price. Next season when that band comes through or when a similar band plays that venue, the investors already know, "Hey, almost no one is spending 50 bucks to go see The Decemberists play in a ramshackle beer hall, no matter how much hipster hype they get on college radio". They don't buy up all the available tickets. This leaves more tickets in the hands of the original ticket seller. Word gets around among fans that "Hey there are still lots of tickets left to that show and this year they're only $18.50! Me and Kaiteleighn are going - come with us!"

The market adjusts. You are talking about this as if tickets have some durable value and are being snatched up and hoarded forever by greedy scalpers. That isn't the case. Tickets are a commodity. Scalpers are commodities traders. Scalpers won't keep buying up tickets that don't return profit. Profit doesn't exist unless demand is higher than supply.

Submission + - Petya Ransomware's Encryption Defeated and Password Generator Released (

runner_one writes: An individual going by the twitter handle leostone was able to create an algorithm that can generate the password used to decrypt a Petya encrypted computer. In my test this, this algorithm was able to generate my key in 7 seconds.
To use Leostone's decryption tool you will need attach the Petya affected drive to another computer and extract specific data from it. The data that needs to be extracted is 512-bytes starting at sector 55 (0x37h) with an offset of 0 and the 8 byte nonce from sector 54 (0x36) offset: 33 (0x21). This data then needs to be converted to Base64 encoding and used on the https://petya-pay-no-ransom.he... site to generate the key.

Unfortunately, for many victims extracting this data is not an easy task. The good news is that Fabian Wosar created a special tool that can be used to easily extract this data. In order to use this tool, you need to take the encrypted drive from the affected computer and attach it to a Windows computer that is working properly. If your infected computer has multiple drives, you should only remove the the drive that is theboot drive, or C:\ drive, for your computer.

Submission + - Vulnerable Serial To Ethernet Converters Let You Hack Just About Everything (

chicksdaddy writes: The biggest threat to the security of hospitals, airplanes, transportation, the electric grid and just about everything else is a little piece of equipment most companies don't even know they have deployed: Serial to Ethernet converters, the Security Ledger reports. (

The inexpensive devices are used to allow legacy equipment that relies on serial connections and protocols to "speak IP," connecting to more modern networks and management tools. As a result, they're used almost everywhere: on airplanes to connect aging avionics equipment, in electrical substations, data centers, you name it. In fact, a serial to ethernet converter was attacked and knocked offline in the recent attack on the electrical grid in Ukraine. (

The problem: the converters are riddled with remotely exploitable security holes and lack many basic security features. The latest evidence of this came last week, when the Department of Homeland Security’s Industrial Control System CERT (ICS CERT) issued an alert about one of the most commonly used serial to ethernet converters, a device called NPort manufactured by a Taiwanese company, Moxa. ( That followed the publication of research by Rapid7 on the Moxa devices that found no-authentication-required features that would permit an attacker to push new firmware (software) onto the converter and a buffer overflow vulnerability that opens the devices to having malicious code run on it. Vendors like Moxa have also been slow to respond to security issues reported to them — if they respond at all, said Reid Wightman of the firm Digital Bond. After months of ignoring Digital Bond's inquiries, Moxa told ICS-CERT that it will have a patch ready for the critical, remotely exploitable holes in its late August.

With more than 5,000 NPort devices publicly addressable, the possibility for mayhem and so-called 'cyber kinetic' attacks looms large. Taking control of the Serial to Ethernet converter is paramount controlling the devices that connect to it, experts said “Once you have access to the converter, its game over,” said Billy Rios of the firm Whitescope. “The devices attached to it will do whatever you tell them to do.”

Submission + - The Future of Ransomware is Self-Propagating Worms

Trailrunner7 writes: Ransomware has become one of the top threats to consumers over the course of the past few years, and it has begun to spread to enterprises as well of late. But as bad as this problem has become, researchers say that what we’re seeing right now may be just a ripple in the water compared to the tsunami that could be on the horizon.

Perhaps the biggest factor, though, in the move toward ransomware attacks on enterprises is the ability to infect multiple machines, destroy backups, and pull in a large payment all at once rather than relying on multiple smaller payments from individual victims. In order to get that large payment, though, the attacker needs to have the ability to get his ransomware on large numbers of machines in a target network, and that requires rapid infections and lateral movement inside the network.

Enter the self-propagating ransomware worm.

Researchers from Cisco’s Talos team did an in-depth analysis of the current state of ransomware attacks and looked at what the future may hold, too. They analyzed the recent attacks featuring the SamSam ransomware, which has some functions that allow it to spread on a network. It goes after network backups and looks for mapped drives.

“The ultimate goal for this stage of invasion is to locate and destroy networked backups before mass-distributing ransomware to as many systems on the network as they are able to access.. After finding the backup systems and destroying any local backups, or otherwise denying access to said backups, the adversary scans and enumerates as many Windows hosts as they can. After the hosts are enumerated, the attackers utilize a simple combination of a batch script, psexec, and their ransomware payload to spread the ransomware through the network in a semi-automated fashion,” a paper from Cisco Talos released this week says.

Submission + - Uber Releases First-Ever Transparency Report (

An anonymous reader writes: Uber released its first transparency report today, an overview of the information that was requested by U.S. regulators and law enforcement in the second half of 2015. The report shows that while Uber is not yet receiving the number or type of requests that non-transport companies do, the data requests affect millions of Uber customers and drivers.

Uber received 408 requests for information from law enforcement, and 415 from state and federal governments. These requests were complied with in approximately 85% of cases, where after review, Uber provided at least some of the data requested. They also responded to 67 requests for information from regulatory bodies and from airports, with data provided on over 11 million riders and 600,000 drivers.

Submission + - Symantec: Zero-Days Doubled In 2015, More Companies Hiding Breach Data (

itwbennett writes: According to a new report by Symantec, 54 zero-day vulnerabilities were discovered in 2015, more than twice as many as in 2014, and the number of breaches of more than 10 million records also hit a record high. Driving this is a new professionalism in the market. 'People figured out that they could make money by finding zero-day vulnerabilities and selling them to attackers,' said Kevin Haley, director of security response at Symantec. 'So there became a marketplace, and these things started to have value, and people started to hunt for them.' At the same time, 2015 saw another disturbing trend: The number of companies choosing not to report the number of records they have lost rose by 85 percent (from 61 in 2014 to 113 in 2015). 'More and more companies aren't actually revealing what was breached,' said Haley. 'They will say attackers came and stole from us, but not saying how many records were lost.'

Comment Re:No uncertain terms? (Score 1) 400

You can't force a company to spend money and man hours making something that doesn't exist so that you can use their product they way you want to,

Why not? I can be forced to spend money (and therefore the man hours necessary for me to earn that money) in order to consume a product -- health insurance -- so why can't a company be forced to spend money and man hours making a product?

In the 21st century we've already established that the government can compel behavior whenever it suits the public interest. Everything else from here on out is just a temporary quibble over details, until all regulations are permitted.

Comment Re:Phone Numbers (Score 1) 289

I think it's an interesting thought, but disagree. To many places say "go to" or "" for that to be true. I believe you are attempting to equate laziness with ignorance, which is wrong. Most users are lazy, but they know what an address is. Hell, most technical people are lazy too. We just maintain truckloads of bookmarks.

This isn't something you can "disagree" on. I spend a significant portion of my time teaching/training/educating users up and down the food chain. Let me assure you -- there are a LOT of people out there who do not have any idea what the address bar in a browser is and how to use it. When you show them something as simple as typing "" they look at you like you've just given them a pill which regenerated their kidneys and cured their need for dialysis.

Comment Re:Phone Numbers (Score 1) 289

- Universally Ubiquitous
- Nationalized
- Lowest Common Denominator
- (for POTS anyway) Pretty damn rock solid in most of the world

Did Facebook kill Email? No.
Did Google kill the address bar? No.
Did Apple kill the PC? No.
Did solar panels (insert any other energy technology) kill the grid? No.
Will Facebook messenger (or any company-centric IM system) kill telephones? No.

Next flamebait topic please.

It is easy to sit here on Slashdot and say that Google did not kill the address bar, because I've no doubt at least 85% of the people here know what "URL" stands for, how a URL is composed and read by a browser, and are also people who desire a high level of direct control over their computing and therefore don't mind memorizing dozens of unique URL strings for the sites/pages they use most often.

Actual normal users, on the other hand, only know whatever their current system tells them. I work with/around hundreds of people every day who only know one URL: I rarely get more than 1-2 days without observing a user go to google and type "yahoo mail" as the search string, then click a google result for the Yahoo! Mail site. This is how they always access their email. Going to the address bar and typing in is like asking them to interpret ancient copies of the Bible written in Greek. The address bar wasn't totally 'killed' by Google, but the google mentality and in-browser search providers have so heavily obfuscated the site/page address that a significant percentage of computer users would be stymied by a browser operating at, say, the Netscape 4 level, and it would take them a very long time to find things they access every day.

It's a very apt comparison to phone numbers, which for many people under 25, they don't know ANY numbers of their friends' or family members. They have been using name-based electronic lists of contacts since they were 17 or earlier. If they lost their cell phone and were standing at a pay phone they would have no idea how to contact anyone without calling Directory Assistance... i.e. Google for phone numbers.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer